Author
Topic: How committed is the community to bitsharesX as opposed to the next "DAC"? (Read 3333 times)

I'm still wrapping my mind around the whole bitshares thing, and trying to decide if it makes sense to invest.

I see a lot of technological innovation that I'm excited about in bitsharesX (faster confirmation times, more secure network, no wasted energy mining, account names, greater anonymity, etc.) and I am encourage by its rapid ascent.

However, I'm confused by the whole DAC and protoshares thing. It makes it sound like bitsharesX is just a one particular set of DACs, but that the core developers and perhaps the community are not committed to working towards bitsharesX becoming the main way of moving money around, making mobile retail payments, etc.

From an investing perspective this is concerning. A cryptocoin is only worth as much as its mind-share and momentum. Bitcoin's market cap is 100x bitshareX's because of its first mover advantage, and the hope that a cryptocoin could replace some of the antiquated financial infrastructure we are currently stuck with. People are building the infrastructure necessary to get Bitcoin at ATMs, pay at retail establishments with Bitcoin, integrate Bitcoin seamlessly into e-commerce channels, etc. Very little of this kind of work is being done for any altcoin, but an altcoin with a sufficiently superior technology might have a shot at making it to the mainstream.

bitsharesX seems like it might bring enough technological improvement to have a shot. But if the core developers and community are going to move on to bitsharesY (a hypothetical new DAC) in a year then bitsharesX doesn't seem like a good bet.

Is bitsharesX the one to bet on, or should I wait for bitsharesY? Does my concern make any sense? Am I totally misunderstanding something important?

Any BitShares Y DAC would honor BitShares X so buying BTSX is getting a cut in any other DACs that leverage that technology.

Of course BitShares Y would have new features funded by new capital and thus likely dilute BTSX holders when upgrading but BTSX would continue on its own.

So betting on BTSX is betting on all DACs derived from it (to some extent).

Developers own a lot of BTSX so they have reason to see it grow.

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

I'd be curious to see replies to this too. I've just bought more BTSX and decided against buying PTS as right now it would involve keeping up with and understanding every single dac released, though I will continue to investigate them and may change my mind.

It seems to me that a decentralized exchange for bitassets in the form of bit-currencies (bitUSD etc), bit-commodities (bitGLD etc) and even potentially a stock market (bitGOOG etc) is a huge prospect. PTS seems like a separate thing, smaller, cool and requiring an equally large time-investment to understand them all.

I'm still not sure whether DACs released to PTS holders benefit BTSX holders...

It makes it sound like bitsharesX is just a one particular set of DACs, but that the core developers and perhaps the community are not committed to working towards bitsharesX becoming the main way of moving money around, making mobile retail payments, etc.

I am curious how did you get to that conclusion?-Was it from the fact that the whole dev team is working well more than 8h a day on it, and in my observation 6 (and quite likely 7) days a week.-Was it from to fact that some of that team have promising DAC's of their own, that are left for later, while BTSX is rapidly developed.-Is it due to versions coming every 2 to 4 days.-was it due to the fact that new features (and significantly new) are coming at least once a week.

Logged

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

I am curious how did you get to that conclusion?-Was it from the fact that the whole dev team is working well more than 8h a day on it, and in my observation 6 (and quite likely 7) days a week.-Was it from to fact that some of that team have promising DAC's of their own, that are left for later, while BTSX is rapidly developed.-Is it due to versions coming every 2 to 4 days.-was it due to the fact that new features (and significantly new) are coming at least once a week.

Nice way to remind all of us how grateful we can be of our dev team (and the community, how is available 24/7 to answer questions in the forum!)

It makes it sound like bitsharesX is just a one particular set of DACs, but that the core developers and perhaps the community are not committed to working towards bitsharesX becoming the main way of moving money around, making mobile retail payments, etc.

I am curious how did you get to that conclusion?-Was it from the fact that the whole dev team is working well more than 8h a day on it, and in my observation 6 (and quite likely 7) days a week.-Was it from to fact that some of that team have promising DAC's of their own, that are left for later, while BTSX is rapidly developed.-Is it due to versions coming every 2 to 4 days.-was it due to the fact that new features (and significantly new) are coming at least once a week.

I understand where he's coming from. A team entirely committed to making one thing great (BTSX) is better than a team diluted to many different projects. I personally have seen more commitment to the BTSX DAC and feel it has greater potential, so that is where I'm mostly invested. I did grab around $150 worth of AGS a couple months back, though, just in case some really nice DACs come along...but mostly I'm sticking to BTSX.

It makes it sound like bitsharesX is just a one particular set of DACs, but that the core developers and perhaps the community are not committed to working towards bitsharesX becoming the main way of moving money around, making mobile retail payments, etc.

I am curious how did you get to that conclusion?-Was it from the fact that the whole dev team is working well more than 8h a day on it, and in my observation 6 (and quite likely 7) days a week.-Was it from to fact that some of that team have promising DAC's of their own, that are left for later, while BTSX is rapidly developed.-Is it due to versions coming every 2 to 4 days.-was it due to the fact that new features (and significantly new) are coming at least once a week.

It's partly due to the fact that as a newbie, it's *extremely* hard to understand how all these DACs fit together and it isn't explained anywhere. I think there should be an investment page on the wiki that lays it all out.

At any rate, if I'm investing in BitShares X it's because I am hoping that it will become the leading cryptocurrency, and that as the most widely used cryptocurrency it will have the greatest utility through network effects, and that this will drive demand, and the price will rise dramatically due to pairing increasing demand and fixed supply.

But if the plan is to create BitShares Y, BitShares Z, etc. then why will BitShares X be valuable? For one, dramatic increases in price depend on fixed supply, so creating new coins with similar mind share will spread the demand. Secondly, for long term success a coin needs to benefit from economic network effects. That is why people are betting on Bitcoin even though it's technology is inferior. The value of the coin is only secondarily related to technology, and primarily related to how many other people have adopted it, and therefore how useful it is for transactions. I don't want to invest in a coin whose developers are *planning* to dilute its network effects by creating competitors.

Does that answer you question? I understand that the community is working hard on BitsharesX right now. But is the plan to make a succession of competitors? If so, the future of BitsharesX looks bleak compared to Bitcoin...

Are you familiar with the snapshot concept? BM addressed above how btsx holder value is preserved even if a successor is announced

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Logged

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Any BitShares Y DAC would honor BitShares X so buying BTSX is getting a cut in any other DACs that leverage that technology.

Of course BitShares Y would have new features funded by new capital and thus likely dilute BTSX holders when upgrading but BTSX would continue on its own.

So betting on BTSX is betting on all DACs derived from it (to some extent).

Developers own a lot of BTSX so they have reason to see it grow.

This seems very nebulous to me. What does it mean that they would honor BTSX?

More importantly, as I just wrote in another message "The value of the coin is only secondarily related to technology, and primarily related to how many other people have adopted it, and therefore how useful it is for transactions. I don't want to invest in a coin whose developers are *planning* to dilute its network effects by creating competitors."

The reason Bitcoin is so valuable right now despite its inferior technology is because it has experienced radically more adoption than any of its competitors, and that makes it about a zillion times more useful (and as the front runner, people are betting that it will continue to experience more adoption). What can I use a ripple/litcoin/bitshareX for in the real world? Basically nothing. But I can buy actual stuff with Bitcoin. Will litecoin ever experience mainstream adoption? I doubt it. It basically does nothing that Bitcoin doesn't already do, so people will just use Bitcoin instead. Bitshare X *does* do something that Bitcoin doesn't already do, so it has a chance of widespread adoption, but not if it's community is going to release a stream of competitors that dilute it's network effects.

Does that answer you question? I understand that the community is working hard on BitsharesX right now. But is the plan to make a succession of competitors? If so, the future of BitsharesX looks bleak compared to Bitcoin...

The plan is not to make competitors to Bitshares X.

The new DACs that are under development, which you will get shares of if you own PTS, serve very different purposes: Bitshares DNS, Bitshares Vote, Bitshares Music, etc. They are not competitors to BitsharesX.

These other projects are being worked on by other people than the core dev team of Bitshares X. (I think?)

To summarize: Bitshares X is the stock market and derivative exchange DAC. It is being worked on very hard by the dev team. If you want it, you need to buy BTSX.

Other DACs are being worked on as well, which do not compete with Bitshares, but instead serve other functions. If you want in on these, you buy PTS.

But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.

Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.

Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.

Does that answer you question? I understand that the community is working hard on BitsharesX right now. But is the plan to make a succession of competitors? If so, the future of BitsharesX looks bleak compared to Bitcoin...

The plan is not to make competitors to Bitshares X.

The new DACs that are under development, which you will get shares of if you own PTS, serve very different purposes: Bitshares DNS, Bitshares Vote, Bitshares Music, etc. They are not competitors to BitsharesX.

These other projects are being worked on by other people than the core dev team of Bitshares X. (I think?)

To summarize: Bitshares X is the stock market and derivative exchange DAC. It is being worked on very hard by the dev team. If you want it, you need to buy BTSX.

Other DACs are being worked on as well, which do not compete with Bitshares, but instead serve other functions. If you want in on these, you buy PTS.

In that case which one aspires to be a universal currency? I.e. the one I can walk into any store and buy a coffee, or send to a friend and know that he'll accept it as real money, or buy a house with, etc.?

Is that BitShares X?

Can I be assured that the community won't come out with "BitShares Coin" in a year that is supposed to play that role?

Will the community resist attempts to create a DAC that compete with BitShares X for that role, or will they enthusiastically embrace the new competitor?

But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.

Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.

Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.

It would likely honor 100%, not 10%.

Logged

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.

Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.

Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.

But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.

Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.

Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.

It would likely honor 100%, not 10%.

Really? You wouldn't keep a small percentage for yourself?

I assume he has a small % in BTSX already, so he will keep that.

Logged

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.